DOCSLIB.ORG

The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: the Ghost of William Howard Taft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: the Ghost of William Howard Taft University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2006 The uprS eme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft Kenneth W. Starr Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Starr, Kenneth W., "The uS preme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft" (2006). Minnesota Law Review. 32. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/32 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARR_3FMT 05/17/2006 09:15:32 AM Essay The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft Kenneth W. Starr† William Howard Taft genially served as the tenth Chief Justice of the United States.1 His career was of breathtaking variety. Younger even than current Solicitor General Paul Clement, the buoyant Solicitor General Taft delivered “speech” after “speech” in the Supreme Court in the late nineteenth cen- tury. Little did he suspect, one might safely surmise, that one day—after an intervening tour of duty as President of the United States—he would occupy the center chair itself and lis- ten to his successors (many times removed) delivering their “speeches” to the Court in the old English style. In those hal- cyon, or at least less hurried, days, lawyers were allowed abun- dant time to present their case, educate the Justices, and per- haps even persuade the Court by the force of oral advocacy.2 Those were also the days when the Court was duty-bound to decide the lion’s share of the cases that came before it.3 The † Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law. The author would like to thank Terence S. Dougherty, Audrey Maness, and Hannah Dyer for their as- sistance. 1. Chief Justice Taft was appointed by President Warren G. Harding in 1921, and he presided over the Court until 1930. DAVID H. BURTON, TAFT, HOLMES, AND THE 1920’S COURT: AN APPRAISAL 113–14 (1998). 2. See Margaret Meriwether Cordray & Richard Cordray, The Calendar of the Justices: How the Supreme Court’s Timing Affects Its Decisionmaking, 36 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 183, 193 (2004). Prior to 1873, two counselors on each side were permitted to argue up to two hours individually. Id. In 1873, the Court amended its rules, allowing each side to argue for two hours total. Id. 3. Although the Judiciary Act of 1916 attempted to lighten the docket by making certain decisions of the state and circuit courts final, there was a “gen- eral post-war increase in all judicial business” that “increased the volume of cases coming to the Supreme Court from sources uncontrolled by the 1916 leg- islation.” FELIX FRANKFURTER & JAMES M. LANDIS, THE BUSINESS OF THE SU- PREME COURT: A STUDY IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM 255–56 (1928). Un- affected by the 1916 Act were cases from the district courts, cases from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and perhaps more significantly, 1363 STARR_3FMT 05/17/2006 09:15:32 AM 1364 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [90:1363 Court’s “appellate” docket was a mainstay of High Court prac- tice, sharply cabining the sweeping discretion that the Court came to enjoy in deciding what to decide. But Taft presciently saw into the future. Not only did he persuasively insist that the Court move out of the subterranean quarters in the Capitol and into the building that only symbolically bears his name, Taft persistently maintained that the Court should be vested with broad discretion as to what work it would do.4 So it was that eighty years ago, the Court received a mighty boost in charting its own path in being able to decide what to decide. This was a Taftian triumph of a high order. With the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1925, the Supreme Court largely became the master of its domain.5 No longer sad- dled with a caseload dominated by mandatory appeals, the Court was largely free to decide which cases it wanted to hear. To be sure, the Act did not entirely jettison appellate (manda- tory) jurisdiction, but review increasingly became a matter en- trusted to the Justices’ discretion. In the intervening eighty years, the Court’s workload has come to be almost wholly dominated by the certiorari docket, carrying with it Chief Jus- tice Taft’s dream of (virtually) unfettered mastery over its sub- stantive workload.6 Taft’s vision, however, has been compromised. His essen- tial message to Congress was “trust us.” That is, Congress was to trust the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion responsi- bly and prudently in order to accomplish two broad objectives: (i) to resolve important questions of law and (ii) to maintain uniformity in federal law. These Taftian values are faithfully embodied in the provision with which Supreme Court practitio- ners are intimately familiar: Supreme Court Rule 10.7 cases from the Court of Claims for the District of Columbia, which adjudicated numerous contract disputes arising from the war. Id. at 256. 4. Id. at 259. 5. Judiciary Act of 1925, ch. 229, 43 Stat. 936. 6. See Cordray & Cordray, supra note 2, at 194–95; Kenneth W. Starr, Op-Ed, Rule of Law: Trivial Pursuits at the Supreme Court, WALL ST. J., Oct. 6, 1993, at A17 (stating that modernly “the court enjoys virtually unfettered discretion to select its docket”). 7. Supreme Court Rule 10 states, Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in con- STARR_3FMT 05/17/2006 09:15:32 AM 2006] SUPREME COURT’S SHRINKING DOCKET 1365 The second prong of Taft’s promise, however, has fallen by the wayside. Since the retirement of the late Justice Byron White,8 the Supreme Court by and large does not even pretend to maintain the uniformity of federal law.9 Curiously enough, this infidelity to the Taftian vision has largely gone unnoticed, save for those sourpusses (such as yours truly) whose efforts to catch the High Court’s attention are typically rebuffed.10 Whin- ing aside, something has been afoot through much of the life of the just-concluded Rehnquist Court. Facts are stubborn things, flict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power; (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important fed- eral question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. SUP. CT. R. 10. 8. Even the late Justice White failed to bring much-needed attention to the persisting circuit conflicts. In fact, Congress’s Commission on Structural Alternatives, chaired by retired Justice White, made no mention of the ongo- ing conflicts in its 1998 report, instead suggesting that the answer to the bur- geoning appellate docket was to divide the Ninth Circuit into three smaller appellate venues. This proposal, if effectuated, would actually increase the number of unresolved circuit disputes. Arthur D. Hellman, Never the Same River Twice: The Empirics and Epistemology of Intercircuit Conflicts, 63 U. PITT. L. REV. 81, 89 (2001). 9. Arthur D. Hellman, Precedent, Predictability, and Federal Appellate Structure, 60 U. PITT. L. REV. 1029, 1031 (1999) (“Those who advocate struc- tural reform believe that the system too often fails to speak with an ‘authorita- tive legal voice.’ As a consequence, appellate outcomes are less predictable and more ‘quirky.’”); Arthur D. Hellman, The Supreme Court, the National Law, and the Selection of Cases for the Plenary Docket, 44 U. PITT. L. REV. 521, 522– 23 (1983) (stating that “respected judges, scholars, and practitioners have be- gun to question whether nine mortal men and women, constrained by the structure and procedures of appellate adjudication, can do everything that is necessary to maintain clarity and uniformity in the national law”). 10. Starr, supra note 6. STARR_3FMT 05/17/2006 09:15:32 AM 1366 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [90:1363 as Mr. Adams famously argued before the Boston Massacre jury,11 and the facts show beyond the slightest doubt that the Court is willing to allow conflicts in federal law to exist—and, even worse, to persist. In this Essay, I discuss how the Rehnquist Court, due in large part to its shrinking merits docket, failed to live up to Chief Justice Taft’s vision.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2007 Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Devins, Neal, "Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court" (2007). Faculty Publications. 346. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/346 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CONSTITUTIONAL A VOIDANCE AND THE ROBERTS COURT Neal Devins • This essay will extend Phil Frickey's argument about the Warren Court's constitutional avoidance to the Roberts Court. My concern is whether the conditions which supported constitutional avoidance by the Warren Court support constitutional avoidance by today's Court. For reasons I will soon detail, the Roberts Court faces a far different Congress than the Warren Court and, as such, need not make extensive use of constitutional avoidance. In Getting from Joe to Gene (McCarthy), Phil Frickey argues that the Warren Court avoided serious conflict with Congress in the late 1950s by exercising subconstitutional avoidance. 1 In other words, the Court sought to avoid congressional backlash by refraining from declaring statutes unconstitutional. Instead, the Court sought to invalidate statutes or congressional actions based on technicalities. If Congress disagreed with the results reached by the Court, lawmakers could have taken legislative action to remedy the problem. This practice allowed the Court to maintain an opening through which it could backtrack and decide similar cases differently without reversing a constitutional decision. In understanding the relevance of Frickey's argument to today's Court, it is useful to compare Court-Congress relations during the Warren Court of the late 1950s to those during the final years of the Rehnquist Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Clerk and Justice: the Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenCommons at University of Connecticut University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2008 Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge Laura Krugman Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Ray, Laura Krugman, "Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge" (2008). Connecticut Law Review. 5. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/5 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 41 NOVEMBER 2008 NUMBER 1 Article Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge LAURA KRUGMAN RAY Justice John Paul Stevens, now starting his thirty-third full term on the Supreme Court, served as law clerk to Justice Wiley B. Rutledge during the Court’s 1947 Term. That experience has informed both elements of Stevens’s jurisprudence and aspects of his approach to his institutional role. Like Rutledge, Stevens has written powerful opinions on issues of individual rights, the Establishment Clause, and the reach of executive power in wartime. Stevens has also, like Rutledge, been a frequent author of dissents and concurrences, choosing to express his divergences from the majority rather than to vote in silence. Within his chambers, Stevens has in many ways adopted his own clerkship experience in preference to current models. Unlike the practices of most of his colleagues, Stevens hires fewer clerks, writes his own first drafts, and shares certiorari decisionmaking with his clerks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable William H. Rehnquist 1924–2005
    (Trim Line) (Trim Line) THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 1924–2005 [ 1 ] VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES MEMORIAL TRIBUTES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE scourt1.eps (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Photograph by Dane Penland, Smithsonian Institution Courtesy the Supreme Court of the United States William H. Rehnquist VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE 23500.001 (Trim Line) (Trim Line) S. DOC. 109–7 WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES MEMORIAL TRIBUTES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2006 VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE scourt1.eps (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Compiled under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing Trent Lott, Chairman VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Order for Printing Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment Tests from the Burger Court: Will They Be Flipped?
    FIRST AMENDMENT TESTS FROM THE BURGER COURT: WILL THEY BE FLIPPED? David L. Hudson, Jr. † and Emily H. Harvey †† I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 52 II. THE LEMON TEST ..................................................................... 53 III. THE MILLER TEST .................................................................... 58 IV. THE CENTRAL HUDSON TEST ..................................................... 63 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 66 I. INTRODUCTION When scholars speak of the Burger Court, they often mention the curtailing of individual rights in the criminal justice arena, 1 federalism decisions, 2 its “rootless activism,” 3 a failure in equal † David L. Hudson, Jr., is a Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Newseum Institute First Amendment Fellow. He teaches at the Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. He would like to thank his co-author Emily Harvey, the student editors of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review , and Azhar Majeed of FIRE. †† Emily H. Harvey is the senior judicial law clerk for the Hon. Frank G. Clement, Jr., of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 1. See Yale Kamisar, The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective , 31 TULSA L.J. 1, 14, 44 (1995); Steven D. Clymer, Note, Warrantless Vehicle Searches and the Fourth Amendment: The Burger Court Attacks the Exclusionary Rule , 68 CORNELL L. REV . 105, 129, 141, 144–45 (1982). 2. See David Scott Louk, Note, Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court , 125 YALE L.J. 682, 686–87, 694, 710, 724–25 (2016); Lea Brilmayer & Ronald D. Lee, State Sovereignty and the Two Faces of Federalism: A Comparative Study of Federal Jurisdiction and the Conflict of Laws , 60 NOTRE DAME L.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review by M
    BOOK REVIEW By M. KELLY TILLERY Accuracy, Reality and Nuance A Thorough Evaluation of the Relationship Between the Roberts Court and the Constitution Uncertain Justice Marcia Coyle’s “The Roberts Court: The – The Roberts Court and Struggle for The Constitution” (Simon The Constitution & Schuster, 2013, 464 p.) and Tribe’s Written by Laurence Tribe and fellow Harvard Law School Professor Joshua Matz Mark Tushnet’s “In The Balance: Law 401 pages and Politics on The Roberts Court” $ 32, Henry Holt and Co., 2014 (W.W. Norton & Co., 2013, 352 p.), but this one does the most, the best, in the arvard Law Professor and fewest pages. U.S. Supreme Court scholar While this court has had more than its H Laurence Tribe and co- fair share of 5-4 decisions with Justice author Joshua Matz masterfully distill Kennedy the deciding vote between the the debacle that is the Roberts Court’s right of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and first decade into only a few hundred Alito and the left of Breyer, Ginsburg, pages of quite readable, informative and Kagan and Sotomayor, neither entertaining prose. ideological ‘block’ is entirely monolithic Those who attended Tribe’s recent PBI or predictable. Nor is the pivot, Justice CLE presentation in Philadelphia, for Kennedy. Thus, “Uncertain Justice.” which this book served as the handout, Even the most jaded liberal critic of will find the professor’s remarks lifted this court will be surprised to find that almost verbatim therefrom, but also although it is, by tradition, called the a further cornucopia of political and “Roberts Court,” the chief justice is constitutional philosophy, thoughtful a la William Howard Taft.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Sandra Day O'connor: the World's Most Powerful Jurist?
    JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL JURIST? DIANE LOWENTHAL AND BARBARA PALMER* I. INTRODUCTION Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been called a "major force on [the] Supreme Court,"' the "real" Chief Justice, 2 and "America's most powerful jurist."' 3 Others have referred to her as "the most 5 powerful woman in America" 4 and even of "the world.", Even compared to women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, there is no one "who has had a more profound effect on society than any other American woman... If someone else had been appointed to her position on the court, our nation might now be living under different rules for abortion, affirmative action, race, religion in school and civil rights. We might well have a different president." 6 Former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger noted, "What is most striking is the assurance with which this formerly obscure state court judge effectively decides many hugely important questions for a country of 275 million people.",7 As one journalist put it, "We are all living in * Diane Lowenthal, Ph.D. in Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University and Barbara Palmer, Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Minnesota, are assistant professors in American University's Washington Semester Program. The authors would like to thank their undergraduate research assistants, Amy Bauman, Nick Chapman-Hushek, and Amanda White. This paper was presented at October 28, 2004 Town Hall The Sway of the Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Her Influence on Issues of Race, Religion, Gender and Class sponsored by the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class and the Women, Leadership and Equality Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Give UM Lecture
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana University of Montana News Releases, 1928, 1956-present University Relations 8-26-2002 Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer to give UM lecture University of Montana--Missoula. Office of University Relations Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/newsreleases Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation University of Montana--Missoula. Office of University Relations, "Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer to give UM lecture" (2002). University of Montana News Releases, 1928, 1956-present. 18010. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/newsreleases/18010 This News Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Relations at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Montana News Releases, 1928, 1956-present by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Montana UNIVERSITY RELATIONS • MISSOULA, MT 59812 • 406-243-2522 • FAX: 406-243-4520 Aug. 26, 2002 Contact: Shelley Hopkins, director of external relations, School of Law, (406) 243-4319. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER TO GIVE UM LECTURE MISSOULA-- The University of Montana School of Law will host its third member of the U.S. Supreme Court when Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer speaks at the William B. Jones and Judge Edward A. Tamm Judicial Lecture Series. Breyer, the Supreme Court’s 108th justice, will give the sixth installment in the Jones- Tamm Lecture Series at 3 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 11, in the University Theatre.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Initial Considerations for Congress
    Legal Sidebari The Death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Initial Considerations for Congress September 21, 2020 On September 18, 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, passed away at the age of eighty-seven, vacating a seat on the High Court that she had held for twenty-seven years. Nominated to replace Justice Byron White in 1993, Justice Ginsburg already had a trailblazing career as a law school professor; Supreme Court litigator; co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project; and judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) for thirteen years. Several of her opinions have been consequential, including her 1996 majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, holding that women could not be denied admission to the Virginia Military Institute on the basis of their sex. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in a recent statement that “no American has ever done more than Justice Ginsburg to ensure equal justice under law for women.” Justice Ginsburg was also noted for her pointed dissents, including in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), where the Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), where the Court rejected a Title VII employment discrimination claim. In more recent years, Justice Ginsburg gained recognition in popular culture, becoming known by the moniker “the notorious RBG.” She was the subject of books, movies, and an opera, and in 2015, was named one of Time magazine’s one hundred most influential people.
    [Show full text]
  • Elena Kagan Can't Say That: the Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 88 Issue 2 2010 Elena Kagan Can't Say That: The Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation Neil J. Kinkopf Georgia State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Neil J. Kinkopf, Elena Kagan Can't Say That: The Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation, 88 WASH. U. L. REV. 543 (2010). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol88/iss2/7 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ELENA KAGAN CAN’T SAY THAT: THE SORRY STATE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION NEIL J. KINKOPF MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES From: Ray L. Politik, Counsel to the President Re: Proposed Statement of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, on her nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Date: June 2010 _______________________________________________________ I have reviewed the draft statement that Elena Kagan has proposed submitting to the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 In this statement, Dean Kagan seeks to educate the Judiciary Committee and the American people to think differently about the enterprise of constitutional interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and the Roberts Court
    Property and the Roberts Court John G. Sprankling I. INTRODUCTION How do property owners fare before the Roberts Court? Quite well. Owners prevail in 86% of civil property-related disputes with government entities.1 But this statistic does not tell the whole story. This Article demonstrates that under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts the Court has expanded the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to owners to a greater extent than any prior Court. It analyzes the key trends in the Court’s jurisprudence that will shape its decisions on property issues in future decades. Almost 100 years ago, Justice Holmes remarked that government regulation of property which went “too far” would be unconstitutional; yet the precise line between permissible and impermissible action has never been drawn.2 The issue has generated debate through much of American history, particularly in recent decades as the influence of conservative ideology on the Supreme Court has expanded. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts were broadly viewed as more sympathetic to private property than the Warren Court had been. However, the most controversial anti-owner decision of the modern era, Kelo v. City of New London,3 was decided in the final year of the Rehnquist Court. In Kelo, the Court held that the city was empowered to condemn owner-occupied homes and transfer them to private developers as part of an economic redevelopment project4―a ruling that ignited a firestorm of protest across the nation. In his confirmation hearings to serve as Chief Justice, John Roberts pledged to act as an “umpire” on the Court, a person with “no agenda” Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rehnquist Court and Beyond: Revolution, Counter-Revolution, Or Mere Chastening of Constitutional Aspirations?
    THE REHNQUIST COURT AND BEYOND: REVOLUTION, COUNTER-REVOLUTION, OR MERE CHASTENING OF CONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATIONS? THE PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: FROM PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT TO THE NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE STATE Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson* I. INTRODUCTION: PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT Five years ago, we offered a theory of how constitutional change and constitutional revolutions occurred, which we called the theory of “partisan entrenchment.”1 Much has happened in the subsequent half-decade, and we are grateful for this opportunity to offer an update of our thoughts, together with some amendments to our initial formulation. By far the most important amendment is to draw out in more detail how the development of constitutional doctrine by courts occurs within the broader framework of changes in constitutional regimes, which include changes in institutions, legislation, and administrative regulation. The forces of democratic politics drive these regime changes, and the major actors are not courts but the political branches. Although courts may initially resist these changes, in the long run, they cooperate with them, shape their contours, and legitimate them through the development of constitutional doctrine. In the second half of this essay, we describe an emerging regime of institutions and practices that we call the “National Surveillance State,” which, we think, represents the major constitutional development of our era. The National Surveillance State responds to the particular needs of warfare, foreign policy, and domestic law enforcement in the twenty-first century. That such a state is emerging has become clear in the wake of 9/11 and debates about the War on Terror. However, it is not limited to the * Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 It Is Interesting to Note That the First Circuit Has Been Admired for Its
    15 It is interesting to note that the first circuit has been admired for its amazing scarcity of dissents, due in no small part to Judge Breyer's ability to encourage people to empathize with each other and to teach people with disparate views to find new ways to agree. I am confident that it is this ability that has gained him the back- ing of liberals and conservatives alike, not because he is a centrist or a moderate, which may prove to be inaccurate, but because he has an enormous intellectual honesty and because he is fair. Colleagues, litigants, students, and clerks uniformly agree that Judge Breyer never wraps his ego into an issue, he never elevates politics over principle, and he has earned his reputation as a skilled jurist by being openminded and sensitive to detail. So I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will overwhelmingly agree, and I could not more strongly recommend Judge Stephen Breyer for your confirmation. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Now we will hear from a distinguished member of this commit- tee, Senator Feinstein. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. As one of the newer members on this committee, it, indeed, has been a great, I think, and unique experi- ence to sit on my first confirmation to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and now to go through these hearings for Judge Stephen Breyer.
    [Show full text]